“IF” Barak Obama was born in Hawaii then, “Statute, by birth within U.S.” applies as in either;

"a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" or "a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of
parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a
continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person."

OR

“IF” Barak Obama was born in Kenya, then “Statute by parentage” applies as in; "If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not,
the child is a citizen if the U.S. citizen parent has been "physically present" in the U.S. before the child's birth for a total period of at least
five years, and at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent's fourteenth birthday."

HOWEVER

The question has always been one, which no person(s) other than the courts and or the Congress of the United States is qualified to and or can
decide.

Then, the determination must be made, regarding the Constitutional requirement of the President, or Vice President of the US to be a “natural born
citizen”, does President Obama’s birth and birth location comply with the intent of the Constitution of the United States.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER 2:You are [unintelligible] saying that he isserving illegally as the President of the United States.
JOE ARPAIO: I never said that.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER 2:Well, if you...
JOE ARPAIO: I never said that. I... We’re talking about a birth certificate. And he can... he can present other information proving that he was born
here. I’m just talking about a birth certificate, possible forgery, and fraud. That’s all

Arpaio never denied that the investigation involved questioning Obama's eligibility. He just denied that he made any claims that Obama was illegally
the president.

Your point?

You know my point. If there was an investigation that concluded Ron Paul and his supporters were rigging the elections, and the investigations were
lead by keith olbermann, michael moore and nancy pelosi, and their experts involved individuals with no prior experience in elections, would you lend
credibility to the investigation? I certainly wouldn't think so.

I'm not denying it, I'm saying Arpaio is.

And Arpaio never at any time denied in that conference that the investigation was not based around Obama's eligibility. He contributed to a book
based on this very investigation entitled 'a question of eligibility'.

Fraud does make eligibility questionable,

Yet you deny that Arpaio is questioning Obama's eligibility through his conclusions.

but Fraud is also a crime, so it makes the Obama Administration criminal before making him ineligible.

Unless it involves a document in question that was and is key to answering the eligibility question. Birthers demanded Obama release his long form
birth certificate to settle their complaints, Obama did so, now birthers concluded that the long form is fraudulent. To insist this is not connected
to Obama's eligibility, and that Arpaio's findings are not related to this question, is misleading to say the least.

And I never said he wrote the book either

Really?

Arpaio is even selling an ebook on the investigation entitled 'a question of eligibility':

Yes, he didn't write the entire book, but he contributed to it, his county sheriffs department's name is on it.

How? How is knowing about it contributing? Blaming him for something he didn't do again?

So you are of the position that Arpaio may have not known what ebook was going to be entitled before he decided to contribute I take it? If Arpaio is
so insistent this has nothing to do with questioning his eligibility, why didn't he get the title of the ebook changed? And why did he allow his
county sheriffs of to be named as one of the contributors to the ebook? Because he is questioning Obama's eligibility.

Well yeah, it is his birth certificate, the whole thing is about him

But you're not accusing him of anything, neither is Arpaio.

The whole investigation is about the digital copy genius. They want to forensic age test the microfilm physical document.

Again, you have absolutely no authority in calling a document a forgery if you haven't examined the actual document, and if your experts have no
experience or knowledge about handling birth certificates, specifically Hawaiian birth certificates. Does a computer expert have the authority or
experience to conclude my drivers licence is fraudulent? No. Does a graphics designer have the authority to conclude my passport is a forgery? No.
This is hard to understand.

Who else was going to do the investigation then?

Hawaiian health officials, those individuals who handle and hold the necessary experience in Hawaiian birth certificates. The only people who can
authenticate birth records in Hawaii. But if you did that, the answer would not come to your liking now would it?

I don't put it in the realm of impossibility that he wasn't born here.

But you don't believe he has proven that he was born there? Simple question.

JOE ARPAIO:Good afternoon. You know, in August last year, a large group of citizens came to my office from the Surprise Arizona Tea Party and met
with me, asked if I would investigate the controversy surrounding President Obama's birthcertificate and his ability to serve as the President of
the United States. This groupexpressed displeasure that no law enforcement agency in the country has ever goneon record indicating that they had
either looked into this situation or were willingto do so.I decided to utilize my cold case posse, volunteers, to investigate the situation at no
expense to the tax payer.

Arpaio never denied that the investigation involved questioning Obama's eligibility. He just denied that he made any claims that Obama was illegally
the president.

So follow your own logic then. Arpaio is not saying the president is serving illegally, but somehow he is saying that he is ineligible. you cannot
separate the two.

You know my point. If there was an investigation that concluded Ron Paul and his supporters were rigging the elections, and the investigations
were lead by keith olbermann, michael moore and nancy pelosi, and their experts involved individuals with no prior experience in elections, would you
lend credibility to the investigation? I certainly wouldn't think so.

I don't dismiss the evidence before seeing it. It's pretty much as simple as that.

Fraud does make eligibility questionable,

Yet you deny that Arpaio is questioning Obama's eligibility through his conclusions.

I'm saying it wasn't the focus of discussion, the document was. You have the conclusion to the large question not the immediate one. The larger
conclusion is that he is ineligible, the immediate conclusion is that the Whitehouse released a fake document.

Unless it involves a document in question that was and is key to answering the eligibility question. Birthers demanded Obama release his long
form birth certificate to settle their complaints, Obama did so, now birthers concluded that the long form is fraudulent. To insist this is not
connected to Obama's eligibility, and that Arpaio's findings are not related to this question, is misleading to say the least.

Uhhh. If the image of the document the Whitehouse released was generated digitally, then it's fraud. Simple as that.

So you are of the position that Arpaio may have not known what ebook was going to be entitled before he decided to contribute I take it? If
Arpaio is so insistent this has nothing to do with questioning his eligibility, why didn't he get the title of the ebook changed? And why did he
allow his county sheriffs of to be named as one of the contributors to the ebook? Because he is questioning Obama's eligibility.

man you are obsessed with this eligibility thing. The focus is fraud, the larger question is eligibility. I think what you are trying to say is that
this entire thing has the ulterior motive to remove Obama from office. Which is fine, most people see it that way anyway. Motive isn't always the
most important thing however, because it distracts away from people looking at evidence in plain sight.

Well yeah, it is his birth certificate, the whole thing is about him

But you're not accusing him of anything, neither is Arpaio.

Yeah, it's pretty hard to have a fraudulent birth certificate and be innocent at the same time. So Arpaio should have just went bold with it. But
that is another larger question. The immediate question is, where did document come from if it was created, who's responsible for forging the
document?

Again, you have absolutely no authority in calling a document a forgery if you haven't examined the actual document, and if your experts have
no experience or knowledge about handling birth certificates, specifically Hawaiian birth certificates. Does a computer expert have the authority or
experience to conclude my drivers licence is fraudulent? No. Does a graphics designer have the authority to conclude my passport is a forgery? No.
This is hard to understand.

I already addressed this. It would be a digital forgery, so yes they have all the authority to call it that, by
analysis and by contrasting the excuses from the Whitehouse.

Who else was going to do the investigation then?

Hawaiian health officials, those individuals who handle and hold the necessary experience in Hawaiian birth certificates. The only people who
can authenticate birth records in Hawaii. But if you did that, the answer would not come to your liking now would it?

Actually it was a trick
question because the answer is that no one would likely do it because they think the President was born in the States.

But you don't believe he has proven that he was born there? Simple question.

Yes. Just like when a liar tells you the truth. All i'm saying is, yeah, in all likeliness he was born in Hawaii, but that doesn't make it
impossible that this is a forgery

Originally posted by -W1LL
geeze are you blue in the face yet.. great post BTW.

only reason I ever doubted obamas citizenship is because his own grandmother said she watched his birth in .... and the fact that all the documents
and secrecy around these Docs. the semantics behind the law during the Time of obamas birth show he is not eligible tho. someone in the begging of the
thread cleared that up well with links and quotes of the law to back it up.

I sweat to God, man, these people are frickin' dim witted! See, I never put much credence into that interview with his grandma in Kenya. English
wasn't her first language, and for all I know, she may have thought they were talking about her son, who happened to have the same name. Or, she's
just old and confused. She said what she said, but everyone makes mistakes. Hell, just look at the campaigns and all the, "I didn't mean that,
here's what I meant" backtracking and whatever. I can see how people would grab onto it, but I didn't really put much into it.

Originally posted by juveous
So follow your own logic then. Arpaio is not saying the president is serving illegally, but somehow he is saying that he is ineligible. you cannot
separate the two.

No you can't I agree, but like you Arpaio is being deceptive of his true position. He never denied that this investigation was about questions
surrounding Obama's eligibility (he mentioned the purpose of the investigation in his first opening statement at the conference), just as to whether
he concluded that Obama was illegally president. Arpaio hinges on the idea that 'questions' still haven't been answered, not as to whether he
concluded anything.

I don't dismiss the evidence before seeing it. It's pretty much as simple as that.

Uh no it's not as simple as that. I'm fairly certain you would dismiss the evidence if you found yourself in that scenario, but this is your personal
position.

I'm saying it wasn't the focus of discussion, the document was.

Oh so now we're talking about the 'focus' of discussion? Not as to whether questions regarding Obama's eligibility had any impact on the investigation
and Arpaio's findings at all?? Another step back I see.

Uhhh. If the image of the document the Whitehouse released was generated digitally, then it's fraud.

Not according to Hawaiian health officials, the ones who actualy handle and authenticate Hawaiian health documents: hawaii.gov...
cate

But you'll believe WND, Arpaio, and his posse right? I'm certainly not going to change your mind on this, you are invested personally in this
matter.

man you are obsessed with this eligibility thing.

Your participation in this thread has nothing to do with whether Obama has proven he is eligible to be president? I find this hard to believe.

Yeah, it's pretty hard to have a fraudulent birth certificate and be innocent at the same time.

This would be true if the birth certificate was fraudulent. This is however the position of birthers Arpaio and world net daily. This isn't the
position of Hawaiian health officals, this isn't the position of government officials, the isn't even the official position of the Arizona State
government.

If you want to go ahead and call it fraudulent, it's a free country, but it doesn't make it true.

Yes. Just like when a liar tells you the truth. All i'm saying is, yeah, in all likeliness he was born in Hawaii,

'in all likeliness he was born in Hawaii' doesn't answer the question at all, you just avoid it. Birthers believe that Obama has not
demonstrated sufficiently that he was born in Hawaii and that he is eligible to the presidency, you agree with them, no? Can you man up and actually
answer this question? Or are you going to continue to evade it?

Well states should get a clue and start passing laws requiring valid birth certificate submittals - and a fraudulent one would be a crime. At least
it would stop the SOB from 2012. Then again we'd prolly get Hillery next.

Let me just go back to the initial post of yours that started this all:

Originally posted by juveous
No need to argue the details of eligibility, because that wasn't the argument, nor the accusation being submitted.

JOE ARPAIO:Good afternoon. You know, in August last year, a large group of citizens came to my office from the Surprise Arizona Tea Party and met
with me, 4 asked if I would investigate the controversy surrounding President Obama's birthcertificate and his ability to serve as the President
of the United States.

LISA ALLEN:Good afternoon. I'm Lisa Allen(?), the director of media relationsfor the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, here to introduce you to
those who aregoing to be speaking today and presenting the initial findings of a six-month longinvestigation by the sheriff's cold case posse into
the authenticity of the President's birth certificate and his subsequent eligibility to hold the office of president

CORSI: I can tell you that the investigators were skeptical, not enthusiastic to undertake theinvestigation, that I came with a stated
determination to find the truth. I waswilling, and remain willing, to have been found wrong by the law enforcement investigation on everything I’ve
researched and written about Barack Obama’s birth certificate and his eligibility to be President to this point.

CARL STEEL: To make sure that in the future we maintain the integrity of our ballot and make sure that any candidate seeking public office
meets the criteria that [sic] the office they seek, and give the power to government to enforce our Constitution.

Is the authenticity of the long form birth certificate totally unconnected with the questions as to whether Obama is ineligible? No, far from it.
Obama initially brought up the long form birth certificate to answer to the cries of birthers over his eligibility. It would defeat the purpose of the
investigation if it was not based around the questions against Obama's eligibility to the presidency.

Originally posted by reitze
Well states should get a clue and start passing laws requiring valid birth certificate submittals

Well yes, to an extent I agree with this. I don't have any issue with a State requiring presidential candidates to present proof of birth provided
that they abide by the Full faith and credit clause in doing so and provided that state accepts both short form and long form birth certificates. For
example, Arizona authorities should not be able to refuse to put a Texan candidate on the ballot because they don't accept or trust the verification
given by Texas authorities over the authenticity of the birth certificate. Neither do I think they should have the power to refuse a candidate simply
because they did not present a 'long form birth certificate'. Many states for example, including Arizona themselves (since 2001) only provide for
short form birth certificates upon request.

There needs to be a balance, you cannot have each and every state setting certain criteria that conflict with the procedures of other states, hence
the Full faith and credit clause.

Originally posted by Southern GuardianOriginally posted by juveous
Your participation in this thread has nothing to do with whether Obama has proven he is eligible to be president? I find this hard to believe.

This is the only thing i'm gonna quote. No. Eligibility is a consequential question for me sorry. I'm only concerned if whether the Digital birth
certificate was forged. Yes, I believe Obama was born in Hawaii according to officials and the birth certificate that was released, I also have no
problem being wrong. I'm not the one accusing him of not being born here or not being eligible. But to you, I'm still a blind birther, because I
defend the right to investigate the authenticity of it. This is an issue of trusting information, and if people, for what ever reason, find out that
the document the Whitehouse released lacks credibility, and present the case that it was possibly forged, then I don't dismiss it just because it is
less likely, I dismiss it when i've seen counter-evidence that outweighs the claims.

Irate minorities that demand more proof are hardly a bad thing in my opinion

- They only question things for political purposes
- They repeatedly used debunked "evidence" to promote their claims
- They associate with people that lie and falsify "evidence"
- They have no interest in the truth and will continue you to push their agenda no matter the truth

There's more than enough evidence, real evidence, that Obama is telling the truth. If you don't believe:

The President
The federal government
The government of several states
Multiple courts
The Preisdents family
Other people that knew him
The media

Then you're pretty much guaranteed to never believe. As someone that will never believe you don't actually deserve to ask more questions.... I'm
not saying you're not allowed, but you don't, IMO, deserve any more answers. You refuse to engage with reality and are choosing to side with
political propagandists and fraudsters and paranoid lunatics.

Yeah, see I don't have a problem with it. To me, it is the reason the case would be dismissed is what bothers me. It's just like 9/11 conspiracies,
Osama conspiracies, even Chemtrail conspiracies. They require all this complex insider network of information to work. And you get charlatans that can
make an easy buck by exposing details of the conspiracy. Does that mean, when another detail comes up like a zombie dead beaten horse, that it should
be dismissed before addressing the evidence? This is an issue that could go away, but no one thinks there is good reason to appeal to the concerns of
probably less than 1/5 of Americans who just flat out don't believe the President is from here and want more proof.

Honestly man, there's no point anymore. Birthers are still trying to defend obama birth certificate threads that have even been put in the hoax bin
here at ats. And thats saying something considering weve all seen threads of rocks and the op claims its an alien and even that stayed out of the hoax
bin...

people with an agenda will stick to it despite what the facts say. theyll just make their own facts up and claim anything else is a lie, propaganda,
or words of a shill agent

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.